Teachers Taking "Sick Days" - Anyone want to defend this one?
- Thread starter TeasePlease
- Start date
Fast, many teachers salaries ARE going DOWN next year by 1.5%. Not just frozen, down. If you've taught for 10 yrs. plus your salary will be 1.5% less. An actual pay decrease.
There really needs to be full disclosure of the relationship with teachers or lack thereof in these comments.
Discussions like this boil down to "they're greedy" versus "it's their rights of collective bargaining and imposed contracts" arguments. I'd love to know how many people would take all the "sick days" if they were lawyers/doctors/business people and protected by a contract. You're a liar to say you'd do any different given the same situation as what teachers are in. People are people. Put 30,000 of them together and you get a pretty good spread of general populace behaviour.
Discussions like this boil down to "they're greedy" versus "it's their rights of collective bargaining and imposed contracts" arguments. I'd love to know how many people would take all the "sick days" if they were lawyers/doctors/business people and protected by a contract. You're a liar to say you'd do any different given the same situation as what teachers are in. People are people. Put 30,000 of them together and you get a pretty good spread of general populace behaviour.
make the banked sick days payout at end of year
instead of raise
coming to work everyday will get you your raise at end of year
if you are genuinely sick all the time then change your habits
A good comment. Sometimes I think that the difference between right and left, as portrayed by this board, is that the right folk are mad they aren't rich and blame government and poor people for their problems. The left seems to be more focused on community. So you get endless debates about how 'cushy' government funded jobs are which are really veiled attacks at those they perceive are doing better then themselves while they ignore the inherent problems in the system.
There are talks this weekend about plugging some of the international corporate tax holes that allow companies like Apple to pay basically no tax. Its rumoured as being able to provide about $1 trillion in taxes globally if the treaty comes to be, Harper and Obama are both against these changes, however. Put in place they could provide the funding to cover our social systems and infrastructure.
That's what we should be talking about, not petty gripes about the number of sick days teachers are taking.
Although the social issue of dishonesty and selfishness that underlies the use'em or lose'em response to paid sick-days is well worth talking about.
Yes all teachers will lose 1.5% of salary in the 2nd year of the contract, they will have to take 3 days. If we were to look at where our country stands in education in the world most here would be surprised.
It is ranked near the top in the world along with Finland. Educators come here from all over the world to check our system out and I have had 2 kids just go through the system. It's high time parents took some responsibility for their kids education.
Nomenclature
If teacher "X" for example, was making $80,000 salary in the last year of the old contract, that SAME teacher's salary would now be $78,800 in the 2nd year of the new contract ??
FAST
I still don't think we are on the same wave length here.
If teacher "X" for example, was making $80,000 salary in the last year of the old contract, that SAME teacher's salary would now be $78,800 in the 2nd year of the new contract ??
FAST
Yes. If teacher X has reached the top of the pay grid, that's correct. I don't have a calculator handy but If a teacher x has reached the top of the grid, their salary will be 1.5% less in the 2nd year of the contract. So your numbers sound about right.
If a teacher is moving up the grid, they will still move up but not til the second half of the year. Those teachers also get paid 3 less days than normal so their move up the grid (increase in salary) will be lessened by the 1.5 % less pay.
In the end, some teacher's get slight increases, some are losing salary, all balancing out to a pay freeze.
If a teacher is moving up the grid, they will still move up but not til the second half of the year. Those teachers also get paid 3 less days than normal so their move up the grid (increase in salary) will be lessened by the 1.5 % less pay.
In the end, some teacher's get slight increases, some are losing salary, all balancing out to a pay freeze.
Are the comments not worthy for their content so you have to judge them on bias.
If you want disclosure, I'm an engineer with a small company who doesn't have official sick days but can essentially just tell my boss I'm not coming in or often just work from home. I have a teacher buddy that I've done some coaching with and a teacher ex. That make you happy?
p.s. For some reason this came off harsher than I intended.
A couple years ago but top of the google search.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...mong-best-in-world-report-says/article567927/
What goes up....must come down
DUDE,...you should be a lawyer, and I'm not meaning that as an insult.
You keep referring to grid increases,...I don't care what the old contract pay scale was,...in other words,...what could have been, should have been, whished had been,... had the "freeze" not been applied.
We are talking about whether or not a specific teachers salary will actually be lower in a succeeding year.
I am not going to do the research on what happened to the pay scale at the “top of the grid”,…so I’ll have to take your word for the fact that, there was a reduction at the very top of the grid, AND NOT a reduction in the “increase“, or simply no increase, NOT the same.
Although I still find it a little hard to believe, but possible, that when a teacher moves to the “top of the grid” in the next 2 years, his/her salary will be less than it was before he/she was moved to it.
( you could do a lot for the teachers side if you showed actual verifiable numbers)
But,…as you have already admitted,...a LOT of teachers will in fact get an increase,...so the statement that “teachers have taken a 1.5% pay cut“,... is not true.
FAST
DUDE,...you should be a lawyer, and I'm not meaning that as an insult.
You keep referring to grid increases,...I don't care what the old contract pay scale was,...in other words,...what could have been, should have been, whished had been,... had the "freeze" not been applied.
We are talking about whether or not a specific teachers salary will actually be lower in a succeeding year.
I am not going to do the research on what happened to the pay scale at the “top of the grid”,…so I’ll have to take your word for the fact that, there was a reduction at the very top of the grid, AND NOT a reduction in the “increase“, or simply no increase, NOT the same.
Although I still find it a little hard to believe, but possible, that when a teacher moves to the “top of the grid” in the next 2 years, his/her salary will be less than it was before he/she was moved to it.
( you could do a lot for the teachers side if you showed actual verifiable numbers)
But,…as you have already admitted,...a LOT of teachers will in fact get an increase,...so the statement that “teachers have taken a 1.5% pay cut“,... is not true.
FAST
